Competing workstations of a similar size support more memory, disks and PCIe slots. (And, of course, they have newer CPUs than the Apple Pro.) Competing workstations of a much smaller size match the Apple Pro for for memory, disks and PCIe slots.

When did I say anything about the internals? I was only ever talking about the case. The current internals are a joke. The current generation Mac Pro is a disgrace to the original which was the fastest windows workstation you could buy for a grand less than the closest Dell.

__________________
Yo' mama's so STUPID, she went to Bangkok to get a TIE Fighter.

Last summer, Apple had not yet missed 3 of the last 4 earnings estimates.

Another factor is that it takes a lot of time for the typical Apple shareholder to unload billions of dollars worth of stock without quickly depressing the market for Apple stock, so the Hedge Funds and the Pension Funds and the Mutual Funds, those lovely folks who own the company we love, create a delayed reaction. Hell, they are still selling off their excess AAPL, and that is why the share price continues to tank.

Do you think that the Hedge Funds can divest on a dime? AAPL is Big Money. It takes lots of time to turn a wounded battleship around. You can't just do a 4-wheel drift and turn 180 degrees. AAPL isn't a sports car, it is a hulk.

I don't care how long it takes to unload something. Fact is it didn't take long for Wall Street to go from $1000 price targets to $400 (or less) price targets. And that's what I think is BS. There were tons of rumors and leaks last year so it's not like Wall Street (and the media) were expecting a 5" iPhone that looked nothing like the previous phone but got the 4" iPhone 5 instead. I'd love to know all the data points and "supply chain checks" these gurus has in the summer to lead them to $900-$1000 price targets that all of a sudden vanished in the fall?

__________________"Terrorism is horrible and must be stopped. All of us must do everything we can do to stop this craziness. These people shouldn't exist. They should be eliminated."— Tim Cook 

When did I say anything about the internals? I was only ever talking about the case. The current internals are a joke. The current generation Mac Pro is a disgrace to the original which was the fastest windows workstation you could buy for a grand less than the closest Dell.

I was also talking about the case - it's too big for what's inside.

Can you support your claim about the original Mac Pro?

__________________
6 October 2014 - the day that the debate about marriage equality ended. And equality prevailed.

That money has to go somewhere, why not the people who helped make the company so successful?

I understand why, but I still find it very amusing that their boss was 1016th on the list while they are 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.

Why not go to people that can actually USE the money. Bob Mansfield's life isn't going to change because he got 85 mil instead of 65 mil, but taking that 20 mil and giving an extra 40K to 500 Apple employees making more average wages would.

That's the problem. It's not that people make a lot of money, its that nobody considers anyone else lower on the food chain, and the money ends up flowing to the top to people that do ****-all with it.

I don't care how long it takes to unload something. Fact is it didn't take long for Wall Street to go from $1000 price targets to $400 (or less) price targets. And that's what I think is BS. There were tons of rumors and leaks last year so it's not like Wall Street (and the media) were expecting a 5" iPhone that looked nothing like the previous phone but got the 4" iPhone 5 instead. I'd love to know all the data points and "supply chain checks" these gurus has in the summer to lead them to $900-$1000 price targets that all of a sudden vanished in the fall?

OK. You've convinced me that the billionaires who own Apple are clueless about money. You must be right that "Wall Street" doesn't know how to evaluate the business prospects of megacorporations.

That's the problem. It's not that people make a lot of money, its that nobody considers anyone else lower on the food chain, and the money ends up flowing to the top to people that do ****-all with it.

Not with any currently available data, but when I was shopping, to get a workstation of similar specs was about 5g. Also, remember that the original launched with a chip that wasn't available in any other machine. It was I Lu available in low volume and apple snatched all of them up for their halo machine. Granted six months later yield was sufficient that all pc makers could get them. I don't mind the extra large case, it has great airflow, and its easy for me to get my gargantuan mitts in there when I need to do something.

Not with any currently available data, but when I was shopping, to get a workstation of similar specs was about 5g. Also, remember that the original launched with a chip that wasn't available in any other machine. It was I Lu available in low volume and apple snatched all of them up for their halo machine. Granted six months later yield was sufficient that all pc makers could get them. I don't mind the extra large case, it has great airflow, and its easy for me to get my gargantuan mitts in there when I need to do something.

So in other words, you can't support your claim.

The original did not launch with a chip that was not available in any other machine. Period. Bunk. Horse hockey.

About 8 months after launch, Apple offered a 3 GHz chip that was unique - because no other manufacturer wanted to use it. It was a special bin of the existing chip - but ran at 150 watts per chip. Other manufacturers passed on it, because Intel had a 3 GHz 120 watt chip in the pipeline a few months later. Since the cheese grater case was designed for the nuclear furnaces known by the name "PowerPC", Apple picked it up while everyone else waited for the new stepping which ran 3 GHz at the same wattage as the existing chips. It wasn't a matter of "sufficient yield", it was that a better chip arrived a few months after the thermonuclear 3.0 GHz chips, as clearly outlined in the Intel roadmap.

And the "$1000 cheaper" line has been pretty soundly debunked as well. That $1K cheaper line came from comparing a Mac "Pro" (2006) against a Dell PW 670. Every possible option seemed to be added to the top of the line Dell (1Kw power supply, 512MiB Quadro card vs the 256 MiB GeForce in the Mac "Pro",...). No Apple fan seemed bothered that the Dell had 6 internal drive slots and 7 PCI(/e) slots (vs 4 and 4 for the Mac "Pro"), nor that the Dell supported 64 GiB of RAM vs 16 GiB for the Mac "Pro". The Dell mid-tower PW470 was a closer match to the Mac "Pro" (2006) overall, but it was ignored because it didn't fit the agenda.

Please stop repeating nonsense.

__________________
6 October 2014 - the day that the debate about marriage equality ended. And equality prevailed.